U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking 19

[zdas04]

Yesterday the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published Minority Report Critical Thinking on Climate Change. The Senators in the minority party saw the hearings being held in a somewhat different light than the majority. Starting on Page 12, they list 5 "Questions for Critical Thinking".
[ol 1]
[li]If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, what strategies are being implemented to correct these errors? Should potentially economically crippling policies be put in place before those errors are resolved?[/li]
[li]If global warming has truly been “worse than predicted,” why won’t the federal government provide the data supporting this claim?[/li]
[li]As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years, will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change?”[/li]
[li]Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions?[/li]
[li]Given Earth’s long history of a changing climate, why does the public discussion only tend to focus on the last 70 years or so?[/li]
[/ol]

I think that these questions are excellent. Anyone want to take a shot at them?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[TGS4]

No, he used that money to buy stuff - like multiple properties and to fly around the world. And to pay for energy - lots and lots of energy.

So, according to you, the "Climate Science TM" is accurate, whether or not what Al Gore spews is correct or not? But, wasn't he (and his lies) awarded half a Nobel Peace Prize for "Climate Science TM" work? And didn't he use the "power of office" to set the groundwork for making a tidy little fortune for himself? He's truly the posterchild for distrust of authority figures, and he also happens to have tied his mast to the good ship "Climate Science TM". That the practitioner of "Climate Science TM" have not chosen to cut him loose but to embrace him shows their true characters. You can think that is tin-foil hat stuff if you like - whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

You would certainly gain a lot of credit from me if you would cleanly and clearly repudiate Al Gore, including his little cinematic thriller.

And again, what exactly is this "Climate Science TM" that you keep talking about. Or is it ACC? Or is it Global Warming? Or CAGW? Or Climate Disruption? Or whatever? Unless you can put numbers and facts down, you're even more tin-foil hat than us skeptics.

 

[rb1957]

"to further this illusion of distrust that they try to fabricate around climate science" ... no illusion of distrust in my mind, i do distrust the certitude that they exude.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

"no illusion of distrust in my mind, i do distrust the certitude that they exude."

As opposed to the certitude exuded by the deniers that climate science is nothing more than a left-wing Commie conspiracy to tax everything to death?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[zdas04]

I give up. We have been talking at each other over a couple of thousand posts and no one has given a single inch.

My (early) New Year's Resolution is to not talk about this subject again until 1/1/2016, all of my opinions can be found in the paper I published at ENGINEERING.com in case anyone (from either side) wants to reference my opinions. 15 months should be enough (especially since weather prognosticators are suggesting this will be a tough winter in the Northern Hemisphere) to move the discussion in some other direction.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rotw]

I did not read all the report yet, but if I may comment one point because its formulation triggered me:

quote
1.If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, what strategies are being implemented to correct these errors? Should potentially economically crippling policies be put in place before those errors are resolved?
unquote

is an example of how arrogant can be the intellectual posture of scientists and technical community on the issue because of the word "if". on the other hand, still the question has the merit of existing.

to illustrate what I mean by arrogant, I would delete "if" and re formulate :
"what if computers models and predictions were correct".
"we know as matter of fact the challenge of the task to build such a model and prediction"
"we know how hard is to support the prediction with empirical evidence, in view of the number of interconnected variables"
"we probably face a cognitive limit in understanding and building of models that requires breakthrough thinking"
etc.

As I see it, this is an issue that should be treated with the help of scientific epistemologists and ethics than finite difference model....because of the inherent need :
1/ to tackle this specific category of problems (large number of variable, large interactions between variables, etc.) and
2/ to set up special warranties and enforce by rules "scientific neutrality" on this particular topic research activities

"If you want to acquire a knowledge or skill, read a book and practice the skill".

 

[cranky108]

"climate science is nothing more than a left-wing Commie conspiracy to tax everything to death"

I like that. Where are the new ideas to prove it wrong?

Climate science is one thing, but to attempt to combine it with an anti-free market theme just proves the above.

 

[cranky108]

zdas04, debate is healthy. It is one of the few things that keeps us from killing each other. It's good, even if nothing comes from it.

The whole debate is like killing one bird dosen't matter because there are so many of them. The sky is so big what does it matter.
Wind farms kill a few birds, power plants release a little CO2. If ones good so is the other.

 

[zdas04]

Debate is healthy, and I enjoy it. That is why I hung in for several years. This thread is just making me tired (note: I'm talking about "debate" not the subject I forswore to not discuss)

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[ewh]

It gets even more tiring when the ad hominems start appearing.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[IRstuff]

"If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate"

Just to say that a model is "inaccurate" is meaningless; all model are, by definition, inaccurate, since they abstract a real physical process into a simplified mathematical construct. We know that GPS position finding is an inaccurate model, because there are things like ionospheric propagation errors that cannot be completely accounted for by the algorithms, but, millions of people and thousands of planes can use them sufficiently well to not have accidents, iPhone maps not withstanding.

Purely inertial navigators like those on ICBMs, Apollo, and Pioneer, carry models of classical motion dynamics, and worked well enough that aside from units conversion problems, delivered their payloads to their intent destinations.

The question should be, "how accurate does the model really need to be?" Is it necessary to accurately predict El Ninos?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[rb1957]

i think there are three key inaccuracies of the models ...
1) their completness ... do they model all (or all necessary) climate interactions,
2) how they model the interactions, and
3) the grid size ... possibly a "fatal" flaw in attempting to match well understood interactions.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[cvg]

and
4) GIGO

 

[cranky108]

GPS for example, works well to find my house if you know coordinates. But if you type in the address it will lead you 30 miles off.

Computer models can only be as good as the information and programming going into them. Trust them only to the point of usefuleness, and no more.

Strange anomilies occur all over the world that effect local weather. 14,000 ft or greater mountains, magnetic zones, follage, which can make long term models off the mark. So for predicting the future that is an ever increasing error, so a probibality should exist that allows an ever increasing range of outcomes. So we should ask about the confidance factor of those probalility estimates.

Is there a reason to be scepticle? Yes, because we don't have enough facts, or the right facts. Everyone should be sceptical because we are pridecting the future.

 

[2dye4]

There is no such a thing as a computer model.
There are models of physical phenomena that are too complicated for hand calculation, that is all.

There are models that are only solvable by a numerical method. These predate the existence of computers.

It kinda drives me nuts when the phrase 'computer model' is thrown out as though that means something sinister or incriminating.

And I still don't think we have to model the weather globally decades into the future to predict a warming planet due to solar heat capture.
Does anyone doubt December will be colder than July in the northern hemisphere? The only difference is the incoming solar flux angle
to the Earths surface. We don't need stinkin computer models to believe this.

Although climate is more complicated the change in heat due to the atmospheric gas molecular composition is easy to calculate isn't it.
Wasn't it done over 100 years ago by Fourier. He was a smart guy.

To me there are two parties in the debate.

1 Those who are concerned and do not like the discussion skewed by irrelevant issues, poor science, emotional propaganda...etc.
2 Those who just don't like the idea of limits to our well being provided by the Earth or limits to their professional outlook implied by the solutions.

I think the first party is rational more or less. But you already knew that if you read my posts.

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - we can call it a numerical model/simulation, if that takes the sinistrality out of it for you...

I'm probably going to go ahead and guess that you have never done numerical simulations of complex phenomenon, such as those governed by the Navier-Stokes Equations. I say that, because you really don't seem to fathom the actual level of complexity that exists in these simulations.

Insofar as "climate" is merely the integral of "weather", indeed we do need to be modeling it out for decades.

Even if the soothsayers of doom are correct about the average magnitude of the coming warming, we know from the last ~150 years' worth of data that the warming will not be uniform. Any adapting to future changes (warm or cold, for that matter) is done on a local level - I think that is something that we can agree on. And the current generation of numerical simulations are worse than chance when it comes to regional predictions. Sure, I harp on the fact that, on a global average basis, they've been consistently predicting warmer than reality. And it's starting to be acknowledged in the literature. However, even the IPCC puts a low confidence in these exact same models (CIMP5) with respect to regional prediction accuracy. So, then what's the benefit of these numerical simulations even if they were to exactly predict the global average temperature?

One party that you left out of that final list:
3 Those who are concerned and do not like the discussion skewed by cargo cult science, grant-seeking me-too science, groupthink, emotional propaganda... etc.

We're not that far apart. If you would disavow the "emotional propaganda" of the warmists (350.org, Jim Hansen's "flooding streets of Manhattan", etc), then I'll leave Mr. Nobel Peace Prize out of it, ok?

 

[rb1957]

regional vs global climate ... i think there's some merit in the idea (from chaos theory, and probability) that whilst you can't predict specific events (regional climate, or whether the next throw will be heads or tails) but you can make prediction on a mass of events (global climate, or the expected result of 1000 tosses of a coin).

i too thought 2dye4's objection to the term "computer model" to be pedantic, but if it's preferred i'll use "numerical simulation" in the future.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

"But if you type in the address it will lead you 30 miles off."

that's not GPS doing that, that's a mapping program doing that, which is rife with human interactions and mistakes. GPS doesn't know addresses from a hole in the ground, only lat, long, alt.



TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[GregLocock]

For 2dye4's sake I'll run through the litany

1) atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) much of the increase in CO2 since 1850 is anthropogenic, largely from the burning of fossil fuels
3) greenhouse gases make the atmosphere warmer

So far as I am aware those 3 are reasonably non controversial tho (2) may be arguable

Now we get onto the slippery slope and tumble off the cliff.

4) Any substantial increase above 2 deg C from baseline? in in average global surface temp is bad
5) CO2 has a greenhouse effect substantially greater than that that can be calculated from its properties due to undefined positive feedback effects and an absence of undefined negative feedbacks
6) Cloud cover can't be modelled and we have little historical data so it doesn't matter despite the albedo effect
7) Deep ocean effects can't be modelled and we have little historical data so they can explain anything.







Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[cranky108]

And does not modeling involve human interaction? Human interaction in maping is some how different than humal interaction in modeling?

So lets start with, what is the goal in studying and modeling the earth's CO2 level? Why was it started, and not look at other gases? Why was CO2 picked out?

Now why is the only solutions proposed govermental overlord in nature? And why has no other solutions proposed?

Three gueses:
1. The people who believe in this man-made change, are mindless people with no ideas. (non-thinkers).
2. Other solutions don't meet there agenda. (We only like these solutions).
3. This is a farce and we want to control people. (big goverment is the only way).

So if I believe 1 is wrong, because I don't like calling people mindless, then the real deal is either number 2 or 3.

 

[rb1957]

i think it's mostly 2 with a sprinkling of 3.

i think some climate scientists were genuinely worried by climbing CO2 levels (you asked why CO2 ... 'cause it's a GHG and some say responsible for our habitable globe today ... apparently the earth is about 20degC hotter than it "should" be and CO2 is supposed to be the reason why). I think this got sensationalised, then somewhere along the line GreenPeace (and the bulk of the "green" movement) saw this as a way to push their agenda (they, the general population, are not listening to us; we need i) a more urgent message, and ii) a bigger bogie monster to threaten them with). As for government control, well, some distrust it, some accept it, some welcome it, and some have no say in the matter.

and i think it has been pretty clear that there are several different threads to this debate ...
1) conservation of resources, efficient use of resources, and respect for the environment is one matter,
2) population control is another (most i think realise that a smaller human population would probably mean less of a problem, but i think the story will always be "make the numbers of those guys over there smaller"),
3) that AGHG is chiefly responsible for the current CC, and
4) if CO2 production continues unabated, or expands as projected, then the globe will become uninhabitable (or at least will support a much smaller population).

1) i believe is a widely held belief, at least with engineers.
2) probably isn't worth talking about.
3) is a big bone of contention.
4) is a possible outcome, how likely ? to what extent ? when ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?